Speaking of "Sic et Non," it appears that Dr. Peterson spent the weekend with Will Schryver. He has posted photos of all of them sporting special eyeglasses that allowed them to stare at yesterday's solar eclipse. ...

I suppose they were looking for the people that Brigham Young said were living on the sun.

_________________Zadok:I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.Maksutov:That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

Speaking of "Sic et Non," it appears that Dr. Peterson spent the weekend with Will Schryver. He has posted photos of all of them sporting special eyeglasses that allowed them to stare at yesterday's solar eclipse. ...

I suppose they were looking for the people that Brigham Young said were living on the sun.

No. It won't wash. You used to post in a way that consistently suggested that you were a rather naïve and unsophisticated guy who just couldn't see why those danged anti-Mormons were so weird - "what is it with you guys?". And your sentence construction was of the simplest kind.

Now in recent posts you show a normal college-level standard of English vocabulary, prose construction and general expression. You have stepped out of the stemelbow role, and it is really not convincing for you to try to re-assume it.

What an interesting assessment of me, Chap, no matter how inaccurate. I'm pleased you at least pretend to have paid any attention to another person. Very good.

Funny how neither Smith nor God saw a need to round up eleven of his friends and relatives to testify as to the existence of the papyrus scrolls containing (no, wait--appearing to contain) the writings of Abraham and Joseph. How is it that even avowed critics are today unable to deny the existence of said scrolls without such evidence?

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:08 pmPosts: 2310Location: We Have Always Been At War with Eastasia

stemelbow wrote:

What an interesting assessment of me, Chap, no matter how inaccurate. I'm pleased you at least pretend to have paid any attention to another person. Very good.

stemelbow wrote:

I am not addressing other points of data. But you do support my point nicely here, "While the witness statements may be seen as evidence he had plates, it does not mean he did". It is exactly what I've been saying.

lulu wrote:

Stem, what is the quality of the alleged 8 witnesses' alleged statement that "he had the plates?"

nuttin',stop pretending you're bcspace and answer a damn question.

_________________"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.

Are a few people on this thread admitting that they didn't watch the solar eclipse? It was a sight to behold. During the last such event, I was very ill and couldn't go outside to see it. I am glad I saw it this time.

I wore a welding mask. The glasses were all sold out.

I'll bet DCP, since he's so inherently evil, purposely purchased the last pair of solar-glasses just so others couldn't get them.

_________________- Stan

Last edited by static on Tue May 22, 2012 6:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

No, I didn't, because neither you nor the LDS Church is merely trying to prove that Joseph Smith, the Child Molester, had a set of plates. (You never responded to my suggestion that for the simple purpose of identity, we refer to "Joseph Smith, the Child Molester." So I am taking that to mean that you conceded the point.)

Your point is merely distraction, as usual, DJ. It's true, even to you, that the testimony of the 8 is evidence that Joseph Smith had metallic plates that appeared ancient. One claim of Joseph Smith? Check. There is evidence for it.

Quote:

It's really sad that Mormonism's truth claims are so indefensible that you think you've scored a point by stating a tautology. "Evidence that Joseph the Child Molester had metal plates is evidence that Joseph the Child Molester had metal plates." (I am not making any affirmative claims; I just want to be clear who I'm talking about. Thus, "Joseph the Child Molester.")

Yeah yeah little baby. Don't get so sad so fast. This is just one claim that you seem to pout enough about. remember you brought up the issue in your attempted assessment of evidence. Joseph Smith claimed he had metallic plates that appeared ancient and had writings on them. You don't dispute his claim even though you haven't seen them, nor has any other living person. You don't because there is evidence for their existence. You whimper and whine about a tautology when this was all your creation. You dispute evidence for LDS claims. I don't' know why you would think evidence for a given claim is actually evidence against the claim, but that is your reasoning.

Quote:

And if he ended his claim at, "I, Joseph the Child Molester, have some metal plates," then you would indeed carry the day on this undisputed point. But as Joseph the Child Molester did not end his claim there, your victory is so banal that only your desperation to grasp at anything explains why you keep talking about it.

How sweet you gave me victory.

Quote:

That's because you are being deliberately obtuse. If the Book of Mormon is not a real historical account of pre-Columbian America, it doesn't matter if Joseph the Child Molester showed 8 of his close friends and relatives who already believed his story some unidentifiable metal plates. On the other hand, if you believe Joseph the Child Molester's story, you necessarily believe that an undead Hebrew American prophet gave him some plates, so you don't need the testimony of the Eight Witnesses. In addition to lacking foundation to the claim at issue (that the Book of Mormon is true), their testimony is irrelevant to the claim.

Without their testimony there would be that much less reason for you to accept that he had metallic plates that appeared ancient at all. Talk about deliberately obtuse.

Quote:

Yes, they did, and I am not going to play your game that they were merely trying to identify who Joseph Smith was. They also had to believe Joseph Smith the Child Molester's story as a precondition to be shown the object he purported to be the plates, and the LDS Church touts their testimony as evidence of the divinity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Nice try, pouty pants. The LDS Church, which deserves your utter contempt for some reason, couples the two testimonies together and makes their observations. You here are trying to separate them and then pout about the Church's assessment of the two. I know you and your buds are happy playing such deceptive games, but it's only fair I call you on such games.

Quote:

See, the reason it's obvious you're being disingenuous is that you keep returning to the same rhetorical sleight of hand. There is no foundation for the claim that the object Joseph the Child Molester's dad and older brother and so on were shown was "ancient in appearance." They would have had no way of determining what ancient plates would look like, and they never said how the plates they were shown looked "ancient." A conclusory statement with no explanation is not evidence of anything. The same is true with "writing." They had no possible way of knowing if the scratchings or etchings or whatever on the object they were shown were real, actual writing from another (non-English) language.

But I am perfectly happy for our internet Mormon warriors to make themselves look foolish and disingenuous to any reasonable observer who is browsing message boards like this one. So by all means, please continue as you have been.

EDIT: minor typographical corrections that in no way affect the truth that the foregoing was the most correct post on Earth.

Oh stop blubbering by now. Of course you are left to complain that the 8 had no special training to know whether the plates were ancient even if they thought they appeared so. Nor are they capable of knowing whether what they saw ont he plates were writings of anyone. So? It's still their observations. You readily now know that Joseph Smith had plates that appeared ancient to untrained eyes and had some sort of scratching or etchings that untrained eyes figured were writings. But there is plenty more data to the whole story. This is just one piece and you have unwittingly confirmed by point over and over. So, we can stop the pain you are causing yourself as you whine about Mormon people again.

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:08 pmPosts: 2310Location: We Have Always Been At War with Eastasia

stemelbow wrote:

lulu wrote:

nuttin',stop pretending you're bcspace and answer a damn question.

Stop pouting. My goodness... I simply haven't gotten to your post yet. I have plenty of responses directed at me, and I don't see any point in putting you higher in priority than another.

you asked: "what is the quality of the alleged 8 witnesses' alleged statement that "he had the plates?"

I would say on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of qualitative assessments, mmm...a 7. well, 7.28.

Thank ya.

What is the factual analysis that supports your assessment, Mr. Folksy?

_________________"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.

What is the factual analysis that supports your assessment, Mr. Folksy?

My assessment was loosely based on the notion that their names are attached to a statement that attests to witnessing something. I get that they were all either relatives to each other or the party who made the initial claim of the plates existence, so I can't give it full weight. I get that it wasn't necessarily written by the 8 themselves. On those points I can't give it a full 10, but it appears to be more than an average piece since it convinces the avowed critic DJ no problem.

No. It won't wash. You used to post in a way that consistently suggested that you were a rather naïve and unsophisticated guy who just couldn't see why those danged anti-Mormons were so weird - "what is it with you guys?". And your sentence construction was of the simplest kind.

Now in recent posts you show a normal college-level standard of English vocabulary, prose construction and general expression. You have stepped out of the stemelbow role, and it is really not convincing for you to try to re-assume it.

What an interesting assessment of me, Chap, no matter how inaccurate. I'm pleased you at least pretend to have paid any attention to another person. Very good.

Given the considerable - and from time to time even friendly - attention I have paid to the 'folksy, not very bright' version of stemelbow in the past, and the attention I have paid to the 'new, improved, now with added literacy!' version of stemelbow since its surprising appearance, I consider that downright ungrateful.

But somehow, it reminds me of somebody ...

_________________Zadok:I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.Maksutov:That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

No, I didn't, because neither you nor the LDS Church is merely trying to prove that Joseph Smith, the Child Molester, had a set of plates. (You never responded to my suggestion that for the simple purpose of identity, we refer to "Joseph Smith, the Child Molester." So I am taking that to mean that you conceded the point.)

Your point is merely distraction, as usual, DJ.

No, it isn't. You asserted that when the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses says Joseph Smith (i.e., the Child Molester who was born in Sharon, Vermont) is the translator of the plates, and they handled as many leaves as were translated, the Eight were not making a claim about the plates they were shown being translated. According to you, the statements about translation were just about "identification." I'd like to test how sincerely you believe in that reasoning. So there's no valid reason for you to oppose making it clear that when we're talking about "Joseph Smith," we mean Joseph Smith the Child Molester. I'm not making any claims by using those words. I'm just identifying what I'm talking about.

Quote:

It's true, even to you, that the testimony of the 8 is evidence that Joseph Smith had metallic plates that appeared ancient. One claim of Joseph Smith? Check. There is evidence for it.

Really, really sad, and yet not surprising, that defense of Mormonism's truth claims requires such ongoing misrepresentations. For example, your ongoing misrepresentation that I have supposedly agreed that Joseph Smith (you mean Joseph Smith the Child Molester, right?) had metallic plates that "appeared ancient." I've been explaining for many pages of this thread why there is no foundation to the "appeared ancient" claim. At least Muslims get 72 virgins when they do things for Allah. What do you get in return for lying for the Lord?

[

Quote:

It's really sad that Mormonism's truth claims are so indefensible that you think you've scored a point by stating a tautology. "Evidence that Joseph the Child Molester had metal plates is evidence that Joseph the Child Molester had metal plates." (I am not making any affirmative claims; I just want to be clear who I'm talking about. Thus, "Joseph the Child Molester.")

Quote:

Yeah yeah little baby. Don't get so sad so fast.

It's so very curious that you were trying to appear reasonable and talk like a normal adult, and now you're lapsing back into your "pep pep" thing and name-calling. Certainly neither Chap nor I explicitly said we saw this coming.

Quote:

This is just one claim that you seem to pout enough about. remember you brought up the issue in your attempted assessment of evidence. Joseph Smith claimed he had metallic plates that appeared ancient and had writings on them.

Let's clarify who you mean by "Joseph Smith." For the purposes of identification, you mean Joseph Smith the Child Molester, right? Just for the purposes of identification!

I've already explained repeatedly why there's no foundation to the claim that the object shown to the Eight Witnesses either appeared ancient or had writings on it. But you go ahead and keep misrepresenting things in order to be faith-promoting. I'm sure President Hinckley is smiling at you from on high.

Quote:

You don't dispute his claim even though you haven't seen them, nor has any other living person.

Funny you should mention that. Joseph Smith the Child Molester wanted to prove he had metallic plates. Just that one simple claim. But instead of showing those plates to the world at large, he only shows them to his dad, his older brother, and six other close friends and relatives who already believed his story. And then suddenly those plates aren't around to be examined and verified by people who are not already inclined to accept his story, but we're all supposed to rely on what these eight true believers and intimates of his said they saw. It's just the darndest thing!

Quote:

You don't because there is evidence for their existence. You whimper and whine about a tautology when this was all your creation. You dispute evidence for LDS claims. I don't' know why you would think evidence for a given claim is actually evidence against the claim, but that is your reasoning.

If I had to guess, I would say it's because you keep equivocating between what is actually sought to be proved by the testimonial of Joseph the Child Molester's dad, older brother, and other intimates.

Quote:

Quote:

And if he ended his claim at, "I, Joseph the Child Molester, have some metal plates," then you would indeed carry the day on this undisputed point. But as Joseph the Child Molester did not end his claim there, your victory is so banal that only your desperation to grasp at anything explains why you keep talking about it.

How sweet you gave me victory.

Yay! Our hero who was criminally charged as a glass-looker used the exact same seer stone in his claim to have obtained and translated ancient records, and then he showed a prop to a small inner circle of friends and relatives who already believed his story! And then the thing they were shown disappeared forever, so nobody can verify what they were shown! Sweet victory!

Quote:

Quote:

That's because you are being deliberately obtuse. If the Book of Mormon is not a real historical account of pre-Columbian America, it doesn't matter if Joseph the Child Molester showed 8 of his close friends and relatives who already believed his story some unidentifiable metal plates. On the other hand, if you believe Joseph the Child Molester's story, you necessarily believe that an undead Hebrew American prophet gave him some plates, so you don't need the testimony of the Eight Witnesses. In addition to lacking foundation to the claim at issue (that the Book of Mormon is true), their testimony is irrelevant to the claim.

Without their testimony there would be that much less reason for you to accept that he had metallic plates that appeared ancient at all. Talk about deliberately obtuse.

I still have no reason to believe that the object they were shown appeared ancient at all, because I have no reason to believe they would have known what ancient metallic plates would have looked like, and they didn't say why the object they were shown looked ancient. And what do you know, neither I nor any other living person will ever be able to find out!

Not to change the subject, but did you know Bernie Madoff just sent statements to his investors telling them what securities he had bought for them, but never allowed an audit or anything like that to confirm that the securities really had been purchased? But he showed them an unverified statement! So his investors had evidence (but not proof!) that everything was fine!

Quote:

Quote:

Yes, they did, and I am not going to play your game that they were merely trying to identify who Joseph Smith was. They also had to believe Joseph Smith the Child Molester's story as a precondition to be shown the object he purported to be the plates, and the LDS Church touts their testimony as evidence of the divinity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Probably because it takes people's money under false pretenses and doesn't hold itself to its own standards.

Quote:

couples the two testimonies together and makes their observations. You here are trying to separate them and then pout about the Church's assessment of the two. I know you and your buds are happy playing such deceptive games, but it's only fair I call you on such games.

No, the deceptive game is the Church drawing the unwarranted conclusion and inviting others to do likewise. That's what this thread is about. Just because you have a childish emotional reaction when your cherished beliefs are looked at rationally doesn't mean that other people are also pouting. Then again, you are coming from a belief system that advocates using emotional impulses as a way to evaluate claims of fact. Pep pep!

Quote:

Quote:

See, the reason it's obvious you're being disingenuous is that you keep returning to the same rhetorical sleight of hand. There is no foundation for the claim that the object Joseph the Child Molester's dad and older brother and so on were shown was "ancient in appearance." They would have had no way of determining what ancient plates would look like, and they never said how the plates they were shown looked "ancient." A conclusory statement with no explanation is not evidence of anything. The same is true with "writing." They had no possible way of knowing if the scratchings or etchings or whatever on the object they were shown were real, actual writing from another (non-English) language.

But I am perfectly happy for our internet Mormon warriors to make themselves look foolish and disingenuous to any reasonable observer who is browsing message boards like this one. So by all means, please continue as you have been.

EDIT: minor typographical corrections that in no way affect the truth that the foregoing was the most correct post on Earth.

Oh stop blubbering by now. Of course you are left to complain that the 8 had no special training to know whether the plates were ancient even if they thought they appeared so. Nor are they capable of knowing whether what they saw ont he plates were writings of anyone. So? It's still their observations.

Right, right! They had absolutely no qualifications to make the conclusions they made and the LDS Church is relying on, but SO WHAT?????? We already know the Church is true, so who cares if there is no foundation to the conclusion they drew from their observations!

Quote:

You readily now know that Joseph Smith

Which Joseph Smith? The Child Molester? I ask for the purpose of identification.

Quote:

had plates that appeared ancient to untrained eyes and had some sort of scratching or etchings that untrained eyes figured were writings.

Wow! What compelling evidence!

"And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but 'hefted' them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified." ---Mark Twain

Quote:

But there is plenty more data to the whole story. This is just one piece and you have unwittingly confirmed by point over and over.

Just look at the mounting evidence for Mormonism's claims! The Church claims that God told Abraham that our sun receives its light from another star, and look outside: there's a sun in the sky! The Church says that the Book of Abraham is the translation of some papyrus from the "catacombs" [sic] of Egypt, and we have the papyrus! The Church says it was founded in Palmyra, New York in April 1830, and Palmyra is a real place! You start adding together all these little pieces, and pretty soon you've really got something!

Quote:

So, we can stop the pain you are causing yourself as you whine about Mormon people again.

Oh, look! It's that "you hate Mormons" red herring again. Who would have thought? Why do you need to play the persecution card, stemelbow, when you have all this compelling evidence????

Just look at the mounting evidence for Mormonism's claims! The Church claims that God told Abraham that our sun receives its light from another star, and look outside: there's a sun in the sky! The Church says that the Book of Abraham is the translation of some papyrus from the "catacombs" [sic] of Egypt, and we have the papyrus! The Church says it was founded in Palmyra, New York in April 1830, and Palmyra is a real place! You start adding together all these little pieces, and pretty soon you've really got something!

Next you're gonna be telling me that Joseph Smith was a real person, and then I'll be forced to return to full activity in the Church again!

Truly we live in an age of wonders, when historical people have been known to have actually lived in the past.

I feel moved to bear my testimony: I would feel remiss today if I did not stand before you and tell you that I know, with every fiber of my being, that there lived a man named Joseph Smith, who founded the Church of Jesus Christ in 1830!

This fact, unlike countless others, comes upon my soul with special vividness and power.

_________________"He who sees only with the eyes of reason has no occasion for spectacles."~Vizir Rustan, The Magic Spectacles

Speaking of "Sic et Non," it appears that Dr. Peterson spent the weekend with Will Schryver. He has posted photos of all of them sporting special eyeglasses that allowed them to stare at yesterday's solar eclipse. I hadn't realized that DCP was on such close terms with Schryver--it suggests that rumors about Will's impending publication are true. Further, it makes me wonder about the things Dan was saying behind Will's back--e.g., about him being a "loose cannon" and whatnot. Perhaps he has had a change of heart.

Okay--sorry for the derailment.

How cute! Daniel had a hot date with Will. They are two peas in a pod. The "bad boy" of Mopologetics and the shy, retiring wallflower. It's the stuff that saccharine teen literature is made of. Stephanie Meyer should really look into this budding romance.

_________________"He who sees only with the eyes of reason has no occasion for spectacles."~Vizir Rustan, The Magic Spectacles

Speaking of "Sic et Non," it appears that Dr. Peterson spent the weekend with Will Schryver. He has posted photos of all of them sporting special eyeglasses that allowed them to stare at yesterday's solar eclipse. I hadn't realized that DCP was on such close terms with Schryver--it suggests that rumors about Will's impending publication are true. Further, it makes me wonder about the things Dan was saying behind Will's back--e.g., about him being a "loose cannon" and whatnot. Perhaps he has had a change of heart.

Okay--sorry for the derailment.

How cute! Daniel had a hot date with Will. They are two peas in a pod. The "bad boy" of Mopologetics and the shy, retiring wallflower. It's the stuff that saccharine teen literature is made of. Stephanie Meyer should really look into this budding romance.

??? Kishkumen has been a sock puppet for Paul Osborne all along ????

_________________Zadok:I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.Maksutov:That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:08 pmPosts: 2310Location: We Have Always Been At War with Eastasia

stemelbow wrote:

lulu wrote:

What is the factual analysis that supports your assessment, Mr. Folksy?

My assessment was loosely based on the notion that their names are attached to a statement that attests to witnessing something. I get that they were all either relatives to each other or the party who made the initial claim of the plates existence, so I can't give it full weight. I get that it wasn't necessarily written by the 8 themselves. On those points I can't give it a full 10, but it appears to be more than an average piece since it convinces the avowed critic DJ no problem.

How long were they together?Unknown, might not have all been present together

What was said?Unknown.

Mental state?One witness says he saw with his spiritual eyes

Lighting conditions?Unknown

When was the testimony reduced to writing?Exact date unknown, prior to O. Cowdery finishing Printer’s Manuscript

Who wrote it?Unknown

Was it signed?Unknown, no known holograph nor any historical references to a holograph

Who signed it?Unknown, no known holograph nor any historical references to a holograph

When signed?Unknown, no known holograph nor any historical references to a holograph

Who was present when it was signed?Unknown, no known holograph nor any historical references to a holograph

Was the declaration sworn?No.

Any explanation regarding the original?Historical record is silent regarding a holograph

Any evidence as to the original?No.

Did any of the 8 talk about the experience on any other occasion?Only 1 known, he said he saw the plates with his spiritual eyes.

What was the relationship of each alleged signator with Joseph Smith?Smith and Whitmer families

Did anyone else see the plates?3 other people claimed the plates were displayed to them by an angel, one of those said he only saw with spiritual eyes

What is the evidence that others saw the plates?A statement by 3 witnesses that shares the same problems as the Testimony of the 8 Witnesses

What was the motive for having the document prepared as the 8 testimony?Joseph Smith had been prosecuted before for fraudulant glass looking, a statement by 8 men who could testify in court might viciate the fraud element in future prosecutions.

Are such plates within the usual experiences of people?No.

What was the alleged provenance of the plates?An angel and peep stones helped Joseph Smith locate them, at first mystical powers kept him from taking them but later those powers permitted him to take them

Is such provenance within the usual experiences of people?No.

The evidence is not entitled to any weight regarding 8 seeing any plates.

Response nuttin'?

_________________"And the human knew the source of life, the woman of him, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, 'I have procreated a man with Yahweh.'" Gen. 4:1, interior quote translated by D. Bokovoy.

Last edited by lulu on Tue May 22, 2012 10:21 am, edited 4 times in total.